SUBRATA PAL AND ORS. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Form No.J(2)

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
Subrata Pal & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh
Mr. Ved Rai
Mr. Vivek Saha
Mr. Binayak Bandopadhyay
Mr. H. A. Ghosh

For the State : Mr. Jagiriti Mishra, AAAG
Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, AGP
Mr. Shuvankar Dutta

For the applicant : Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar
In CAN 1 of 2026 Mr. Mantu Mandal

For the intervenor : Mr. Arjun Chowdhury
In CAN 2 of 2026 Ms. Riya Agarwala

Heard on : 08.09.2026

Judgment on : 08.09.2026

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for setting aside
the show cause notices dated 24th August 2026 issued under Section
431(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as
th
the "said Act") and the order dated 27 August 2026 passed under
Section 431(1) of the said Act, dissolving the Board of Councilors of
Jalpaiguri Municipality and the order dated 28th August 2026 appointing

2
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
an administrator consequent upon dissolution of the Board of Jalpaiguri
Municipality in terms of the provisions contained under Section 431 (3) of
the said Act.
2. At the very outset, I may note that an application being CAN 1 of 2026
has filed. The said application, though, claimed by Mr. Uday Sankar
Sarkar, learned advocate, to have been filed by one Dinesh Routh, the
applicant, the same, however, does not disclose the name of the applicant
or the signature of Dinesh Routh in the body of the application. The
affidavit, however, records that he is one of the applicant. On such glaring
defect being noted by this Court, the learned advocate claiming to appear
on behalf of Dinesh Routh seeks leave to withdraw the application.
Accordingly, let the application being CAN 1 of 2026 be dismissed as
withdrawn.
3. Coming back to the writ petition, records would reveal that the petitioners
claim to be elected councilors of various wards of Jalpaiguri Municipality
pursuant to the municipal election held in the year 2022. It is the
th
petitioners’ case that on 19 August, 2026 the petitioners were served
with a notice / order under Section 430(1) of the said Act under the
signature of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal.
Though, the petitioners claim to have responded to the said show cause
notice, the Additional Chief Secretary by order of the Governor, by
th
ignoring such response had issued a notice dated 24 August, 2026
under Section 431(1) of the said Act. The petitioners claim to have
responded to the said notice as well.
4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has brought to
the notice, of this Court not only to the notice under Section 430(1) of the

3
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
nd
said Act but also, the response filed by the petitioners thereto on 22
August, 2026. He submits that though the said notice issued under
Section 430(1) of the said Act dealt with diverse allegations in relation to
disruption in the administrative functioning and civic services, irregular
payment of wages, pension and gratuity, the foundation for issuing such
notice had not been disclosed. It is in the circumstances as aforesaid by
th
response dated 26 August, 2026 the petitioners had called upon the
appropriate authority of the Government to make disclosure of necessary
information based on which such notice had been issued. In any event, it
is submitted that petitioners had duly clarified their position and had
reaffirmed their commitments to discharge their duties sincerely and
diligently.
5. It is further submitted that by ignoring such response, a subsequent
notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act has been issued. He has drawn
th
attention of this Court to the aforesaid notice dated 24 August, 2026 and
would submit that though in the said notice, reliance was placed on a
th
report furnished by the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri dated 24 August, 2026,
copy of such report was not disclosed. According to him, the other reports
noted in the said notice had also not been circulated to the petitioners for
the petitioners to appropriately respond to the same. Further the time to
file response was only three days which cannot be considered to be an
adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause. It is in the
th
circumstances as aforesaid the petitioners by a response dated 26
August, 2026 had called upon the appropriate authority to make
disclosure of the reports which formed the basis of issuance of the
aforesaid notice, for the petitioners to appropriately respond to the same.

4
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
6. Mr. Ghosh further submits that notwithstanding the above, the Additional
Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal without making
disclosure of such document/reports and by specifically relying on the
same, had not only dissolved the Board of Councilors in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 431(2) of the said Act, but by invoking the
powers under Section 431(3) of the said Act, had also appointed an
administrator. According to him, the manner in which the State had
proceeded to dissolve an elected Board is contrary to the Statute. While
th
the time period for compliance of the notice dated 19 August, 2026 was
only five (5) days, three (3) days time was only provided for the petitioners
th
to respond to the notice dated 24 August, 2026. In fact, in the
petitioners’ case the response period was only two days as the said notice
th
was served on the petitioners only on 25 August, 2026. According to
him, the aforesaid vitiates the order of dissolution of the Board of
Councilors and the consequent order of appointment of administrator.
7. In this context, he relies on two several unreported judgments delivered
by this Court in WPA 11873 of 2026 with WPA 12102 of 2026
(Rabishankar Das versus State of West Bengal & Ors. with Nabendu
Mahali versus State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the judgment delivered
in the case of Maisura Begam versus State of West Bengal & Ors. with
neutral citation 2026:CHC-AS:101 . He also relies on the judgment
delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 1321 of 2026
(Santanu Debnath versus State of West Bengal & Ors.)
8. Mr. Mishra, Learned AAAG appears on behalf of the State. He has drawn
the attention of this Court not only to the notice issued under Section
431(1) of the said Act but also the basis thereof. According to him, the

5
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
decision to issued the notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act was
based on several communications and / reports. In this context, he has
relied on the following reports / communications.
th
a. Confidential report dated 29 July 2026 issued by
the Executive Engineer of Jalpaiguri Municipality
addressed to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
th

b. Report dated 29 July 2026, issued by the SDO,
Sadar, Jalpaiguri addressed to the District
Magistrate, Jalpaiguri as regards the allegations of
administrative and financial irregularities.
c. Requisition notice for conveying a special meeting for
consideration of motion of no confidence against the
th
Chairman of Jalpaiguri Municipality dated 30 July
2026.
st
d. Notice dated 1 August 2026 issued by the SDO
Sadar, Jalpaiguri Municipality requesting to ensure
all official records, files, documents, including
financial bills, vouchers, registers, proceedings and
electronic records of Jalpaiguri Municipality are kept
in safe custody.
e. Two several resignation letters issued by the two
Councilors both on the ground of ill health.
th
f. Complain dated 12 August 2026 received by the
Executive Officer, Jalpaiguri Municipality for taking
urgent steps for restoration of disrupted municipal
services.

6
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
th
g. Letter dated 18 August 2026 issued by the SDO,
Sadar, Jalpaiguri, addressed to the Additional Chief
Secretary regarding administrative stalemates in
Jalpaiguri Municipality and its impact on civil
services.
th
h. Letter dated 19 August 2026 issued by the
Executive Officer, Jalpaiguri Municipality to the
Additional District Magistrate, L & R and Municipal
Affairs regarding continued closure of Jalpaiguri
Municpality office and disruption of essential
services.
9. According to the Learned AAAG, the aforesaid documents form the
foundation for issuance of a notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act. It
is submitted that in the instant case though the State could have directly
proceeded under Section 431 of the said Act, to afford an opportunity to
the Board of Councilors of the municipality to rectify their defaults, in
terms of Section 430(1) of the said Act, had fixed a five day period. Such
notice was issued for ensuring due performance of duty by the Board of
Councilors of the Municipality. According to him, since the Board of
Councilors of the municipality did not rectify their mistakes, nor did it
respond to the aforesaid notice and further since an additional report was
th
received from the office of the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri dated 24 August,
2026, the State had issued the show-cause notice under Section 431(1) of
the said Act.
10. He submits that the State was compelled to issue the said notice for
ensuring the essential services of the municipality were maintained, and

7
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
the municipality remains functional. According to him, the Board of
Councilors chose not to respond to the said show-cause as well. The
response was only filed individually and not by the Board. It is in such
peculiar facts the State was compelled to take an unpleasant decision of
dissolving the Board by invoking the powers under Section 431(2) of the
said Act and consequently to ensure continuance of municipal services,
had appointed an Administrator in terms of Section 431(3) of the said Act.
According to him, there is no irregularity in the action of the State and no
interference is called for.
11. Before proceeding to decide on the issues raised in the writ petition, I find
that another application being CAN 2 of 2026 has been filed by the Saikat
Chatterjee, claiming that he had continued as a Chairman of Jalpaiguri
th
Municipality until 27 August, 2026. As such he is interested to intervene
in the present proceeding inasmuch as the issue raised in the writ
petition touches the discharge of duties when the applicant had remained
the Chairman of Jalpaiguri Municipality.
12. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I
find that in the instant case, serious allegations as regards prolonged
administrative and financial constraints, maintaining of essential civic
services, disruption of municipal governance and public service delivery,
garbage collection disruption and other allied failures, including
implementation of Government Schemes have also been leveled against
the Board of Councilors of the municipality. I also find that in the instant
case, the State had proceeded to issue a notice under Section 430(1) of
the said Act, so as to afford an opportunity to the Board of Councilors to
th
rectify the issues raised in the notice issued on 19 August, 2026.

8
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
According to the Learned AAAG since the Board of Councilors of the
municipality did not restore the normal functioning of the municipality
both on account of administration and for interruption of delivery of
essential services and implementation of Government Schemes within the
period noted therein, a further notice under Section 431(1) of the said Act,
th
having regard to the report of the SDO, Sadar dated 24 August, 2026
had been issued. To morefully appreciate the contents of the aforesaid
notice, the relevant portion thereof, is extracted hereinbelow:
“ AND WHEREAS five days period expired and no response
from the Board of Councillors of Jalpaiguri Municipality has been
received.
AND WHEREAS the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Jalpaiguri, vide Memo No. 1925/S.Con, dated 24.08.2026,
furnishing a report (Copy enclosed) on further development
regarding continuing administrative stalemate in Jalpaiguri
Municipality. The detail submission is noted below:
 The Department thereafter issued Order No. 1632/UDMA-
15011(22)/72/2026-LS-MA SEC dated 19.08.2026 under
Section 430(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993,
directing restoration of normal municipal functioning and
uninterrupted delivery of essential civic services and
Government schemes.
 Agitation by pensioners, sanitation workers and other
daily/-rated/casual workers has been continuing since
17.08.2026, resulting in prolonged disruption of the
functioning of the Municipal Office. There have also been
instances of forceful entry by agitators. The Executive
Officer himself could not enter the office due to forceful
obstruction of agitators since 19.08.2026. Other Officials
were also subjected to obstruction from attending office
and discharging their official duties.

9
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
 The situation has consequently progressed from an
administrative impasse to actual disruption of municipal
governance and public service delivery. Water supply,
waste management and daily garbage collection have been
disrupted, while services such as issuance of certificates,
birth and death registration and implementation of
Annapurna Yojana and Ayushman Bharat have also been
affected, with the adverse impact becoming reflected in
service-delivery reports.
 The continued disruption is particularly concerning as the
Department direction under Section 430(1) specifically
requires restoration of normal municipal administration,
uninterrupted civic services and implementation of
Government schemes. The matter has therefore acquired a
wider governance, public service and law-and-order
dimension, beyond the underlying issues within the elected
body and municipal establishment.
 The law-and-order situation remains sensitive owing to the
continued agitation and obstruction at the Municipal
premises. It has so far been contained through sustained
efforts of the Civil and Police Administration; however,
continuation of the present situation carries a persistent
risk of further deterioration.
…………………………………………………………………………
….
AND WHEREAS the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sadar, Jalpaiguri, as stated above, it is clear that normal
functioning of the Jalpaiguri Municipality has not been restored
despite direction of this Department Order No. 1632/UDMA-
15011(22)/72/2026-LS-MA Sec, dated 19.08.2026 in terms of
section 430(1) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.
AND WHEREAS, the reported incident of inability in the
performance of the duties to provide basic amenities to the citizen
and stalemate situation in the Municipality draws attention to the

10
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
provisions of section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993
on power of the State government to intervene in case of gross
neglect or serious irregularity.
………………………………………………………………………
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 431 of the West Bengal Municipal Act,
1993 , the Governor is pleased hereby to direct the Board of
Councilors of Jalpaiguri Municipality to show cause within three
(3) days from the date of issuance of this order why it shall not be
dissolved on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. ”
13. From a perusal of the show-cause notice, it would appear that a three day
period had been afforded to the Board of Councilors of Jalpaiguri
Municipality to show cause from the date of issuance of such notice as to
why it shall not be dissolved on the ground mentioned therein.
Incidentally, though, the Learned AAAG had insisted that it was only for
the Board of Councilors to respond, I find that the notice has been served
admittedly on the individual Councilors who were also required to take
action in terms of such show-cause notice. It is also not in dispute that
the said notice was responded to, if not by all twenty five (25) but by at
th
least fifteen (15) Councilors. I find that in response dated 20 August,
2026 the Councilors had specifically highlighted in paragraph 9 thereof,
the specific issue regarding non-disclosure of adequate document and the
th
report issued by the SDO, Sadar, Jalpaiguri dated 24 August, 2026.
14. It was further stated that the three day notice period provided for to
respond to the show-cause notice was entirely unreasonable and a
request was made to permit the Board of Councilors to respond to the
show-cause within a reasonable period upon receipt of the documents
relied on in the notice issued under Section 431(1) of the said Act.

11
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
th
Incidentally though, in the order dated 27 August, 2026 the respondents
had acknowledged the receipt of the response filed by the fifteen
Councilors, however, the said response was discarded as such response
was not issued by the Board of Councilors of the municipality. According
to learned AAAG, having regard to the provisions contained in Section
431(1) of the said Act, it is only the Board of Councilors which is
competent to file a response and not the individual Councilors.
Incidentally, in the instant case, I find that the show-cause notice under
Section 431 of the said Act, was addressed to the individual Councilors.
Having thus, addressed the show cause to the individual Councilors, the
reply filed by such Councilors could not have been ignored in the manner
the same has been done. The order passed by the State was to have
consequence of dissolution of the Board sooner than the tenure provided
in terms of Clause 1 of Article 243(U) of the Constitution of India which
provides that unless sooner dissolved the tenure of the Board shall be
five years and the proviso thereto, requires a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before its dissolution. In the instant case, having regard to
the disclosure made in the order, it would transpire that the Additional
Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the concluding
th
portion of the order dated 27 August, 2026 has placed reliance amongst
others on the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri vide
th
memo dated 24 August, 2026, and has proceeded to record that in view
of non-restoration of normal functioning of the administration of the
Jalpaiguri Municipality despite direction issued under Section 430(1) of
the said Act and the incident of failure to hold meeting of the Board of
Councilors of Jalpaiguri municipality and to give reply to the said show-

12
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
cause within the specified time, the decision to dissolve the Board has
been taken.
15. Incidentally, none of the document as relied on in the order and as noted
above which according to the learned AAAG from the basis of formation of
opinion of the Government, was made available to the Board of Councilors
to respond to the same before the order of dissolution was passed. In my
view, ordinarily a show-cause under Section 431(1) of the said Act should
not only identify the formation of prima facie opinion but an appropriate
opportunity should be afforded in terms of the said Section to the Board
of Councilors to respond especially when the same is embodied in the
Constitutional Scheme. In this context, Article 243U(1) of the Constitution
of India and Section 431 of the said Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“Article 243U
“Duration of Municipalities, etc.-
(1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any
law for the time being in force, shall continue for five
years from the date appointed for its first meeting and
no longer:
Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before its dissolution.”
“431. Power of the State Government to intervene in
case of gross neglect or serious irregularity. — If,
in the opinion of the State Government, the Board of
Councillors has shown gross neglect in the performance of
the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any other
law for the time being in force, or has committed serious
irregularities in the performance of such duties, the State
Government may by order direct the Board of Councillors
to show cause within the period specified in the order why

13
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
it shall not be dissolved on grounds of charges mentioned in
this order.
(2) If the Board of Councillors fails to answer the charges
within the period specified in the order or within such
further time as may be allowed by the State Government,
or if the answers do not convince the State Government, or
where more than two-thirds of the total number of
Councillors holding office for the time being have, for any
reason, resigned, the State Government may dissolve the
Board of Councillors by an order published in the Official
Gazette with effect from the date of the order.
(3) When the order of dissolution has been passed, all the
powers and functions vested upon the municipal authorities
under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,
shall be exercised by such person or persons to be
designated as Administrator or Board of Administrators as
the State Government may appoint for the purpose. A
general election to the Municipality shall be held within six
months of its dissolution] for the constitution of a new
Board of Councillors immediately thereafter: 222 The West
Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 [Ss. 431-432 Provided that the
new Board of Councillors shall continue only for the
remainder of the period of which the dissolved Municipality
would have continued had it not been so dissolved:
Provided further that when the period for which the Board
of Councillors would have continued is less than six months,
it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for
constituting a new Board of Councillors for such period.
(5) *
(6) *
(7) If any question arises as to what constitutes a gross neglect
or a serious irregularity under this section, the opinion of

14
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
the State Government as recorded in writing in the order,
under this section shall be final and conclusive and the
same shall not be questioned in any court of law.
16. Admittedly, in this case though the notice issued under Section 431(1)
th th
is dated 24 August, 2026, the service of such notice was effected on 25
August, 2026 on the Board of Councilors, as such a mere two day period
was provided to respond. Though, the learned AAAG has contended that the
said Act does not provide for any specific period to respond to the show-
cause, however, having regard to the Constitutional Scheme, in my view, the
opportunity to respond by the Board of Councilors has to be meaningful
opportunity and not an idle formality. In the instant case, the petitioners
had been denied with an opportunity to not only to go through the basis of
formation of opinion but the reasonable opportunity to respond was also not
th
given. In absence of disclosure of the reports as noted in the order dated 27
August, 2026 which is impugned, the Board of Councilors did not get
appropriate opportunity to respond and defend. In identical set of facts this
Court in the case of Maisura Begam (supra) had interfered.
17. Having regard thereto, I am of the view, the instant case suffers from
violation of principles of natural justice. The action taken to dissolve the
Board appears to be in colourable exercise of power and contrary to the
th
Constitutional Scheme. Accordingly, the order dated 27 August, 2026
issued under Section 431(2) of the said Act stands vitiated and is
accordingly set aside. As a sequel thereto, the order issued under Section
431(3) of the said Act appointing an administrator also stands set aside.
Insofar as the application being CAN 2 of 2026 is concerned, the applicant
had not responded to the show-cause at least there is nothing on record to

15
WPA 2013 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
disclose that any response was filed. At this stage though the learned
advocate for the applicant would insist that he had responded to the show-
cause in absence of any disclosure, I am unable to appreciate the same.
Further admittedly, on the own showing of the applicant he has ceased to be
a Chairman.
18. In the light of the above, the application being CAN 2 of 2026 is dismissed
without any order as to costs.
19. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
20. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly
downloaded from this Court’s official website.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Saswata/Sayandeep
A.Rs.